If you left Big Law…

[Anonymous]

You are in a completely comfortable financial position for to make this law risk high reward career move.

[Anonymous]

And you don’t need to go back to work to do it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here.

First off, to the utter ass who implied that I’m stupid because I’m a preschool teacher, screw you. I went to UVA and have a masters in early childhood education. I taught preschool because it’s what I’ve always wanted to do since I was a little girl and I LOVED it. My husband and I decided equally that I would quit my job when my oldest was born because 1) it made sense financially and 2) it was the only job that meant more to me than being a teacher. I’m sorry if your job doesn’t bring you joy or you weren’t supported doing what you love but that was incredibly rude and uncalled for. Luckily you aren’t teaching young children because we certainly don’t need your name calling influencing them.

Also, my youngest in currently in two morning a week preschool. I pick her up at noon. She has two more years of part time school before she starts kindergarten. So in addition to my concerns over what my salary would actually bring in, DH and I are both committed to me being home with her until she goes to school full time. I’m not saying that we can’t be flexible in that if we truly need to be, but when I have offered to look into work he has said he wants me home with her (not in a controlling alpha way, just that we both feel strongly on the importance of one parent home with the child if possible).

OK now I'm curious and I do think this is relevant - what's your backstory? How did you meet, at what points in education/career, etc?

I’m not the OP, but a teacher by education who became a SAHM with a big law husband (who later went in house.) We met in undergrad. It’s not complicated.

I guess he’s okay with never quitting? Or taking a break? Or having the option?

PP here. My DH is fine. He likes in-house, makes about $400k. We never built our life around a big law salary. He will retire at 55.

[Anonymous]

Could he go in house?

It is going to be a huge lifestyle change from $1m+ to $160k. We know two fed families and they live ok.

DH earns a seven figure income and no way could we live on 160k for our family of five. Just our kids’ activities cost a lot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Could he go in house?

It is going to be a huge lifestyle change from $1m+ to $160k. We know two fed families and they live ok.

DH earns a seven figure income and no way could we live on 160k for our family of five. Just our kids’ activities cost a lot.

This is the crux. Not can A family live on $160k (of course) but can THIS family live on $160k. Seems unlikely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why doesn’t he go in house? That seems like a better middle ground. You can live a good life on 500k. On 200k with three kids in a HCOL an area, not so much (particularly coming from seven figures.)

And/or you can get back into the workforce.

Yeah, it’s this. OP, I agree you should ignore the rude PP who was insulting for no reason. But you really shouldn’t ignore people who are saying you need to go back to work. I understand your desire to stay home with your youngest. Lots of people have that desire. For most it is not a possibility. That will very likely be your family if your husband goes to government. And he should do that if he’s truly miserable. Biglaw is the worst, and he didn’t get to 7 figures without putting in many years of grueling firm work. Let him take a break (and to be clear, his “break” will still involve a full time job). It’s your turn to do your part for the family. Figure out how to get back into the workforce in the most lucrative way possible, and put your youngest in full time daycare. It’s what literally almost every American family does. You can too.

I don’t understand all the posters telling OP to go back to work. She clearly doesn’t want to and won’t. If I were her I would pressure DH to stay in big law longer and then move to in house.

Well, why is she entitled to stay home if her husband is miserable? My DH makes around 300/350 and I work for precisely that reason… he doesn’t want to be stressed to death at work. In some ways it’s a sacrifice for our family as our kids don’t have a stay at home parent, but doesn’t seem totally fair for his wife to stay home if he’s miserable. That or they need to figure out how to live on a much lower income.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why doesn’t he go in house? That seems like a better middle ground. You can live a good life on 500k. On 200k with three kids in a HCOL an area, not so much (particularly coming from seven figures.)

And/or you can get back into the workforce.

Yeah, it’s this. OP, I agree you should ignore the rude PP who was insulting for no reason. But you really shouldn’t ignore people who are saying you need to go back to work. I understand your desire to stay home with your youngest. Lots of people have that desire. For most it is not a possibility. That will very likely be your family if your husband goes to government. And he should do that if he’s truly miserable. Biglaw is the worst, and he didn’t get to 7 figures without putting in many years of grueling firm work. Let him take a break (and to be clear, his “break” will still involve a full time job). It’s your turn to do your part for the family. Figure out how to get back into the workforce in the most lucrative way possible, and put your youngest in full time daycare. It’s what literally almost every American family does. You can too.

I don’t understand all the posters telling OP to go back to work. She clearly doesn’t want to and won’t. If I were her I would pressure DH to stay in big law longer and then move to in house.

Well, why is she entitled to stay home if her husband is miserable? My DH makes around 300/350 and I work for precisely that reason… he doesn’t want to be stressed to death at work. In some ways it’s a sacrifice for our family as our kids don’t have a stay at home parent, but doesn’t seem totally fair for his wife to stay home if he’s miserable. That or they need to figure out how to live on a much lower income.

That is the first time I've heard that reason for working. Usually it's ambition, need for money, need for office culture, doesn't like staying home, ingrained link to work and self worth, to keep brain busy, use degree, get away from kids, just in case of divorce, to model working for kids.. I've never heard to be fair to a partner who is miserable working but its not a bad reason either!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why doesn’t he go in house? That seems like a better middle ground. You can live a good life on 500k. On 200k with three kids in a HCOL an area, not so much (particularly coming from seven figures.)

And/or you can get back into the workforce.

Yeah, it’s this. OP, I agree you should ignore the rude PP who was insulting for no reason. But you really shouldn’t ignore people who are saying you need to go back to work. I understand your desire to stay home with your youngest. Lots of people have that desire. For most it is not a possibility. That will very likely be your family if your husband goes to government. And he should do that if he’s truly miserable. Biglaw is the worst, and he didn’t get to 7 figures without putting in many years of grueling firm work. Let him take a break (and to be clear, his “break” will still involve a full time job). It’s your turn to do your part for the family. Figure out how to get back into the workforce in the most lucrative way possible, and put your youngest in full time daycare. It’s what literally almost every American family does. You can too.

I don’t understand all the posters telling OP to go back to work. She clearly doesn’t want to and won’t. If I were her I would pressure DH to stay in big law longer and then move to in house.

Well, why is she entitled to stay home if her husband is miserable? My DH makes around 300/350 and I work for precisely that reason… he doesn’t want to be stressed to death at work. In some ways it’s a sacrifice for our family as our kids don’t have a stay at home parent, but doesn’t seem totally fair for his wife to stay home if he’s miserable. That or they need to figure out how to live on a much lower income.

That is the first time I've heard that reason for working. Usually it's ambition, need for money, need for office culture, doesn't like staying home, ingrained link to work and self worth, to keep brain busy, use degree, get away from kids, just in case of divorce, to model working for kids.. I've never heard to be fair to a partner who is miserable working but its not a bad reason either!

Sorry, I don’t work because DH is miserable. I work because our lifestyle and savings goals require our HHI income level, and he doesn’t want to kill himself in a job that would provide it on one income.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why doesn’t he go in house? That seems like a better middle ground. You can live a good life on 500k. On 200k with three kids in a HCOL an area, not so much (particularly coming from seven figures.)

And/or you can get back into the workforce.

Yeah, it’s this. OP, I agree you should ignore the rude PP who was insulting for no reason. But you really shouldn’t ignore people who are saying you need to go back to work. I understand your desire to stay home with your youngest. Lots of people have that desire. For most it is not a possibility. That will very likely be your family if your husband goes to government. And he should do that if he’s truly miserable. Biglaw is the worst, and he didn’t get to 7 figures without putting in many years of grueling firm work. Let him take a break (and to be clear, his “break” will still involve a full time job). It’s your turn to do your part for the family. Figure out how to get back into the workforce in the most lucrative way possible, and put your youngest in full time daycare. It’s what literally almost every American family does. You can too.

I don’t understand all the posters telling OP to go back to work. She clearly doesn’t want to and won’t. If I were her I would pressure DH to stay in big law longer and then move to in house.

Well, why is she entitled to stay home if her husband is miserable? My DH makes around 300/350 and I work for precisely that reason… he doesn’t want to be stressed to death at work. In some ways it’s a sacrifice for our family as our kids don’t have a stay at home parent, but doesn’t seem totally fair for his wife to stay home if he’s miserable. That or they need to figure out how to live on a much lower income.

That is the first time I've heard that reason for working. Usually it's ambition, need for money, need for office culture, doesn't like staying home, ingrained link to work and self worth, to keep brain busy, use degree, get away from kids, just in case of divorce, to model working for kids.. I've never heard to be fair to a partner who is miserable working but its not a bad reason either!

PP'S argument is a need for money argument. She is just saying one person does not have to stretch themselves so thin for the money: the money can come from two less burdened spouses instead of one over burdened on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Could he go in house?

It is going to be a huge lifestyle change from $1m+ to $160k. We know two fed families and they live ok.

DH earns a seven figure income and no way could we live on 160k for our family of five. Just our kids’ activities cost a lot.

This is the crux. Not can A family live on $160k (of course) but can THIS family live on $160k. Seems unlikely.

Pp here. I also don’t think we live lavishly but our credit card bills may say otherwise. I spend without having to budget and we save a ton, probably half our post tax income. Our kids attend public. We have biweekly cleaners. OP is probably used to eating out or getting groceries without any thoughts about money. I can spend $1000 on a very basic birthday party for my child and drop 5k or 20k on spring break. My kids play tennis and golf and it is pricey. They also like to ski. All these things would be difficult to do on 160k.

I think there are a lot of jobs between big law partner and a fed. Why would your Dh suddenly be happy being a fed? I bet he would be frustrated for other reasons at work and pay.

[Anonymous]

Go back to work. This isn't that complicated. Your family is going to have an incredibly difficult time going from $1M+ to $160K. You need to get a job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Could he go in house?

It is going to be a huge lifestyle change from $1m+ to $160k. We know two fed families and they live ok.

DH earns a seven figure income and no way could we live on 160k for our family of five. Just our kids’ activities cost a lot.

This is the crux. Not can A family live on $160k (of course) but can THIS family live on $160k. Seems unlikely.

Pp here. I also don’t think we live lavishly but our credit card bills may say otherwise. I spend without having to budget and we save a ton, probably half our post tax income. Our kids attend public. We have biweekly cleaners. OP is probably used to eating out or getting groceries without any thoughts about money. I can spend $1000 on a very basic birthday party for my child and drop 5k or 20k on spring break. My kids play tennis and golf and it is pricey. They also like to ski. All these things would be difficult to do on 160k.

I think there are a lot of jobs between big law partner and a fed. Why would your Dh suddenly be happy being a fed? I bet he would be frustrated for other reasons at work and pay.

She says right in her post that he previously was and he loved it. For him its a dream job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why doesn’t he go in house? That seems like a better middle ground. You can live a good life on 500k. On 200k with three kids in a HCOL an area, not so much (particularly coming from seven figures.)

And/or you can get back into the workforce.

Yeah, it’s this. OP, I agree you should ignore the rude PP who was insulting for no reason. But you really shouldn’t ignore people who are saying you need to go back to work. I understand your desire to stay home with your youngest. Lots of people have that desire. For most it is not a possibility. That will very likely be your family if your husband goes to government. And he should do that if he’s truly miserable. Biglaw is the worst, and he didn’t get to 7 figures without putting in many years of grueling firm work. Let him take a break (and to be clear, his “break” will still involve a full time job). It’s your turn to do your part for the family. Figure out how to get back into the workforce in the most lucrative way possible, and put your youngest in full time daycare. It’s what literally almost every American family does. You can too.

I don’t understand all the posters telling OP to go back to work. She clearly doesn’t want to and won’t. If I were her I would pressure DH to stay in big law longer and then move to in house.

Well, why is she entitled to stay home if her husband is miserable? My DH makes around 300/350 and I work for precisely that reason… he doesn’t want to be stressed to death at work. In some ways it’s a sacrifice for our family as our kids don’t have a stay at home parent, but doesn’t seem totally fair for his wife to stay home if he’s miserable. That or they need to figure out how to live on a much lower income.

That is the first time I've heard that reason for working. Usually it's ambition, need for money, need for office culture, doesn't like staying home, ingrained link to work and self worth, to keep brain busy, use degree, get away from kids, just in case of divorce, to model working for kids.. I've never heard to be fair to a partner who is miserable working but its not a bad reason either!

Her reason for working WOULD be the money. If her DH is going to start making $160k, they will definitely need the money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Go back to work. This isn't that complicated. Your family is going to have an incredibly difficult time going from $1M+ to $160K. You need to get a job.

It's almost impossible in this area.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Go back to work. This isn't that complicated. Your family is going to have an incredibly difficult time going from $1M+ to $160K. You need to get a job.

It's almost impossible in this area.

To find a job in early childhood education? OP would be fine. I'm not sure why OP can't find a job teaching preschool (either 3,4, or 5 days a week) AND then send her daughter to that preschool for the next two years before her youngest DC goes to public K.